Human papillomavirus (HPV) & Genital Warts - bad news about the foreskin

Circumcision, Condoms Reduce Risk of Genital Warts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of
genital warts, and some subtypes of the virus can cause cancer. Now,
researchers report that circumcision and regular condom use seem to
reduce the risk of penile HPV infection.

Although HPV is the main cause of cervical and anal cancer, few studies
have looked at risk factors for penile HPV infection in men, Dr. Susie
Baldwin, from the VA Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center in California, and
colleagues point out in the medical journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

To investigate this issue, the researchers studied 393 men who attended
an STD clinic in Arizona between July 2000 and January 2001. The team
gave the men questionnaires and tested swabs of the penis for DNA from
HPV, to see if they were infected.

The likelihood of detecting HPV was over three times higher for men who
engaged in sexual intercourse more than 30 times per month compared with
those who had intercourse no more than 5 times per month.

As noted, circumcision and regular condom use seemed to protect against
penile HPV. Circumcised men were one-third as likely as uncircumcised
men to be infected, while always using a condom halved the risk compared
with never using a condom.

The increasing rate of HPV-related cancers in the US "attests to the
importance of understanding HPV not only in women, but in men, who serve
as vectors of this ubiquitous virus and potentially as reservoirs," the
researchers conclude.

SOURCE: Sexually Transmitted Diseases, October 2004.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6443516

See more at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unashamedly_procirc/

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Circumcision, Condoms Reduce Risk of Genital Warts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of
genital warts, and some subtypes of the virus can cause cancer. Now,
researchers report that circumcision and regular condom use seem to
reduce the risk of penile HPV infection.
------------------------
Nonsense, more insane pro-circumciser nonsense. The statistical
difference is too tiny to matter, especially when the side-effects
and extra mortality/morbidity from circumcision itself is enormous
by comparison!


Although HPV is the main cause of cervical and anal cancer,
----------------------
That isn't demonstrated by research either, especially anal
cancer, this ismerely homophobic nonsense.


To investigate this issue, the researchers studied 393 men who attended
an STD clinic in Arizona between July 2000 and January 2001. The team
gave the men questionnaires and tested swabs of the penis for DNA from
HPV, to see if they were infected.

The likelihood of detecting HPV was over three times higher for men who
engaged in sexual intercourse more than 30 times per month compared with
those who had intercourse no more than 5 times per month.
---------------------
That's ludicrous, it suggests HPV can arise in some magical spontaneous
manner due to frequency between previously virgin
partners. This is also poorly studied.


As noted, circumcision and regular condom use seemed to protect against
penile HPV. Circumcised men were one-third as likely as uncircumcised
men to be infected,
-------------------------
Nonsense, this is basically a racist finding where the research they
reference was done, which was where circumcision was a distinct mark
of economic class division, and that morbidity was far more related
to poverty and poor diet!


while always using a condom halved the risk compared
with never using a condom.
---------------------------
Using condoms is a million times more useful than circumcision,
statistically.
Steve

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Circumcision, Condoms Reduce Risk of Genital Warts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of
genital warts, and some subtypes of the virus can cause cancer. Now,
researchers report that circumcision and regular condom use seem to
reduce the risk of penile HPV infection.

------------------------
Nonsense, more insane pro-circumciser nonsense. The statistical
difference is too tiny to matter, especially when the side-effects
and extra mortality/morbidity from circumcision itself is enormous
by comparison!



Oh dear Steve, you obviously didn't like that much now did you.

Now for the abstract:

=====================

Condom use and other factors affecting penile human papillomavirus
detection in men attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic.

Baldwin SB, Wallace DR, Papenfuss MR, Abrahamsen M, Vaught LC, Giuliano AR.

*Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arizona College
of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona; the Arizona Cancer Center, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Arizona College of Public Health, University
of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the primary
cause of cervical, anal, and other anogenital cancers, but risk factors
for penile HPV detection in men have not been well-characterized.

GOAL:: The goal of this study was to identify correlates of penile HPV
detection in ethnically diverse men attending a sexually transmitted
disease clinic.

STUDY:: A cross-sectional investigation was conducted among 393 men.
Participants completed a risk-factor questionnaire and underwent testing
for penile HPV DNA. Presence of HPV DNA was assessed using polymerase
chain reaction with PGMY primers and reverse line blot genotyping.
Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify variables
associated with any-type, oncogenic, and nononcogenic HPV.

RESULTS:: Circumcision was associated with reduced risk for oncogenic,
nononcogenic, and overall HPV. Regular condom use was associated with
reduced risk for oncogenic and overall HPV.

CONCLUSION:: These findings, if confirmed by other studies, could impact
public health practices and messages regarding HPV.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15388997

More on circumcision at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unashamedly_procirc/

Briar Rabbit wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Circumcision, Condoms Reduce Risk of Genital Warts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of
genital warts, and some subtypes of the virus can cause cancer. Now,
researchers report that circumcision and regular condom use seem to
reduce the risk of penile HPV infection.
------------------------
Nonsense, more insane pro-circumciser nonsense. The statistical
difference is too tiny to matter, especially when the side-effects
and extra mortality/morbidity from circumcision itself is enormous
by comparison!

Oh dear Steve, you obviously didn't like that much now did you.
-------------
No one likes your lies.


Now for the abstract:
---------------
All you did was repeat your NON-PEER-REVIEWED PUT-UP LIES
from pro-circumciser cranks!
Steve

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Briar Rabbit wrote:


Circumcision, Condoms Reduce Risk of Genital Warts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of
genital warts, and some subtypes of the virus can cause cancer. Now,
researchers report that circumcision and regular condom use seem to
reduce the risk of penile HPV infection.

------------------------
Nonsense, more insane pro-circumciser nonsense. The statistical
difference is too tiny to matter, especially when the side-effects
and extra mortality/morbidity from circumcision itself is enormous
by comparison!

Oh dear Steve, you obviously didn't like that much now did you.

-------------
No one likes your lies.



Now for the abstract:

---------------
All you did was repeat your NON-PEER-REVIEWED PUT-UP LIES
from pro-circumciser cranks!
Steve

Oh dear you skin freaks really turn inside out when faced with the truth.

What about this one then?

Male Circumcision, Penile Human Papillomavirus Infection, and Cervical
Cancer in Female Partners
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/15/1105


More on circumcision at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unashamedly_procirc/

Briar Rabbit wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Briar Rabbit wrote:


Circumcision, Condoms Reduce Risk of Genital Warts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of
genital warts, and some subtypes of the virus can cause cancer. Now,
researchers report that circumcision and regular condom use seem to
reduce the risk of penile HPV infection.

------------------------
Nonsense, more insane pro-circumciser nonsense. The statistical
difference is too tiny to matter, especially when the side-effects
and extra mortality/morbidity from circumcision itself is enormous
by comparison!

Oh dear Steve, you obviously didn't like that much now did you.

-------------
No one likes your lies.



Now for the abstract:

---------------
All you did was repeat your NON-PEER-REVIEWED PUT-UP LIES
from pro-circumciser cranks!
Steve

Oh dear you "skin freaks"
----------------------
Your ignorant contrived pet-name for people who want to defend
and protect infants from your insane butchery of their natural
genital inheritance brands you as an obvious raving paranoid.

There is nothing in the least abnormal about foreskins or people
defending infants from your brutality. That you pretend there is
is evidence that YOU'RE the one with the mental/emotional PROBLEM!

You are clearly terrified of anyone without damaged genitals like
you, and this is because you feel threatened and intimidated by
their escape from the kind of mutilation that you suffered. Your
hatred of foreskins is merely a defensive compensatory reaction.
Steve

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Briar Rabbit wrote:


R. Steve Walz wrote:



Briar Rabbit wrote:



Circumcision, Condoms Reduce Risk of Genital Warts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of
genital warts, and some subtypes of the virus can cause cancer. Now,
researchers report that circumcision and regular condom use seem to
reduce the risk of penile HPV infection.

------------------------
Nonsense, more insane pro-circumciser nonsense. The statistical
difference is too tiny to matter, especially when the side-effects
and extra mortality/morbidity from circumcision itself is enormous
by comparison!

Oh dear Steve, you obviously didn't like that much now did you.

-------------
No one likes your lies.




Now for the abstract:

---------------
All you did was repeat your NON-PEER-REVIEWED PUT-UP LIES
from pro-circumciser cranks!
Steve

Oh dear you "skin freaks"

----------------------
Your ignorant contrived pet-name for people who want to defend
and protect infants from your insane butchery of their natural
genital inheritance brands you as an obvious raving paranoid.

There is nothing in the least abnormal about foreskins or people
defending infants from your brutality. That you pretend there is
is evidence that YOU'RE the one with the mental/emotional PROBLEM!

You are clearly terrified of anyone without damaged genitals like
you, and this is because you feel threatened and intimidated by
their escape from the kind of mutilation that you suffered. Your
hatred of foreskins is merely a defensive compensatory reaction.
Steve


Now why did you not comment on the second study? Evidence getting a bit
heavy for you now? Here one about some other STD's. Steve you must admit
the foreskin really is a dog.

Here are the facts:

"CONCLUSION: Uncircumcised men in the United States may be at increased
risk for gonorrhoea and syphilis, but chlamydia risk appears similar in
circumcised and uncircumcised men. Our results suggest that risk
estimates from cross sectional studies would be similar to cohort findings."

=========================

From the following study:

Circumcision and STD in the United States: cross sectional and cohort
analyses.

Diseker RA 3rd, Peterman TA, Kamb ML, Kent C, Zenilman JM, Douglas JM
Jr, Rhodes F, Iatesta M.

Kaiser Permanente Research Department, Nine Piedmont Center, 3495
Piedmont Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30305-1736, USA.

BACKGROUND: Male circumcision status has been shown to be associated
with sexually transmitted disease (STD) acquisition in some, but not
all, studies. Most studies have been cross sectional.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the association between circumcision status and
the prevalence and incidence of gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and syphilis.

METHODS: We analysed cross sectional and cohort study data from a
multicentre controlled trial in the United States. Between July 1993 and
September 1996, 2021 men visiting public inner city STD clinics in the
United States were examined by a clinician at enrolment and 1456 were
examined at follow up visits 6 and 12 months later. At each visit, men
had laboratory tests for gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and syphilis and were
examined for circumcision status. We used multiple logistic regression
to compare STD risk among circumcised and uncircumcised men adjusted for
potentially confounding factors.

RESULTS: Uncircumcised men were significantly more likely than
circumcised men to have gonorrhoea in the multivariate analyses,
adjusted for age, race, and site, in both the cross sectional (odds
ratio (OR), 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9 to 1.7) and in the
cohort analysis (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.6). There was no association
between lack of circumcision and chlamydia in either the cross sectional
(OR, 1.0; 95% CI 0.7-1.4) or the cohort analysis (OR, 0.9; 95% CI
0.5-1.5). The magnitude of association between lack of circumcision and
syphilis was similar in the cross sectional (OR, 1.4; 95% CI 0.6 to 3.3)
and cohort analysis (OR, 1.5; 95% CI 0.4 to 6.1).

CONCLUSION: Uncircumcised men in the United States may be at increased
risk for gonorrhoea and syphilis, but chlamydia risk appears similar in
circumcised and uncircumcised men. Our results suggest that risk
estimates from cross sectional studies would be similar to cohort findings.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

More on circumcision at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unashamedly_procirc/

Briar, you told Steve to check out unashamedly pro at yahoogroups.
This group stinks, to put it mildly. Here are some better ones (short
list):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circumcision_pro_or_con_
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mothersandcircumcision
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circumcisedfamilyshow
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Circumcision_Or_Not
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mother...siondiscussion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/autocircumcision

Plenty of good ones here, for and against and in between. If you need
more, there are plenty of links in the ones I mention to others one.
These are just some of the big ones. Im not trying to argue for or
against your views, Im just poiting out that there are plenty of good
groups to refer people to beside the horrible 'unashamed' group, which
is just one guy ranting. No exchange and no one else posting. You you
havent already, check these groups out.

Tim

Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...
R. Steve Walz wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Briar Rabbit wrote:


R. Steve Walz wrote:



Briar Rabbit wrote:



Circumcision, Condoms Reduce Risk of Genital Warts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of
genital warts, and some subtypes of the virus can cause cancer. Now,
researchers report that circumcision and regular condom use seem to
reduce the risk of penile HPV infection.

------------------------
Nonsense, more insane pro-circumciser nonsense. The statistical
difference is too tiny to matter, especially when the side-effects
and extra mortality/morbidity from circumcision itself is enormous
by comparison!

Oh dear Steve, you obviously didn't like that much now did you.

-------------
No one likes your lies.




Now for the abstract:

---------------
All you did was repeat your NON-PEER-REVIEWED PUT-UP LIES
from pro-circumciser cranks!
Steve

Oh dear you "skin freaks"

----------------------
Your ignorant contrived pet-name for people who want to defend
and protect infants from your insane butchery of their natural
genital inheritance brands you as an obvious raving paranoid.

There is nothing in the least abnormal about foreskins or people
defending infants from your brutality. That you pretend there is
is evidence that YOU'RE the one with the mental/emotional PROBLEM!

You are clearly terrified of anyone without damaged genitals like
you, and this is because you feel threatened and intimidated by
their escape from the kind of mutilation that you suffered. Your
hatred of foreskins is merely a defensive compensatory reaction.
Steve


Now why did you not comment on the second study? Evidence getting a bit
heavy for you now? Here one about some other STD's. Steve you must admit
the foreskin really is a dog.

Here are the facts:

"CONCLUSION: Uncircumcised men in the United States may be at increased
risk for gonorrhoea and syphilis, but chlamydia risk appears similar in
circumcised and uncircumcised men. Our results suggest that risk
estimates from cross sectional studies would be similar to cohort findings."

=========================

From the following study:

Circumcision and STD in the United States: cross sectional and cohort
analyses.

Diseker RA 3rd, Peterman TA, Kamb ML, Kent C, Zenilman JM, Douglas JM
Jr, Rhodes F, Iatesta M.

Kaiser Permanente Research Department, Nine Piedmont Center, 3495
Piedmont Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30305-1736, USA.

BACKGROUND: Male circumcision status has been shown to be associated
with sexually transmitted disease (STD) acquisition in some, but not
all, studies. Most studies have been cross sectional.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the association between circumcision status and
the prevalence and incidence of gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and syphilis.

METHODS: We analysed cross sectional and cohort study data from a
multicentre controlled trial in the United States. Between July 1993 and
September 1996, 2021 men visiting public inner city STD clinics in the
United States were examined by a clinician at enrolment and 1456 were
examined at follow up visits 6 and 12 months later. At each visit, men
had laboratory tests for gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and syphilis and were
examined for circumcision status. We used multiple logistic regression
to compare STD risk among circumcised and uncircumcised men adjusted for
potentially confounding factors.

RESULTS: Uncircumcised men were significantly more likely than
circumcised men to have gonorrhoea in the multivariate analyses,
adjusted for age, race, and site, in both the cross sectional (odds
ratio (OR), 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9 to 1.7) and in the
cohort analysis (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.6). There was no association
between lack of circumcision and chlamydia in either the cross sectional
(OR, 1.0; 95% CI 0.7-1.4) or the cohort analysis (OR, 0.9; 95% CI
0.5-1.5). The magnitude of association between lack of circumcision and
syphilis was similar in the cross sectional (OR, 1.4; 95% CI 0.6 to 3.3)
and cohort analysis (OR, 1.5; 95% CI 0.4 to 6.1).

CONCLUSION: Uncircumcised men in the United States may be at increased
risk for gonorrhoea and syphilis, but chlamydia risk appears similar in
circumcised and uncircumcised men. Our results suggest that risk
estimates from cross sectional studies would be similar to cohort findings.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

More on circumcision at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unashamedly_procirc/

Tim Deringer wrote:
Briar, you told Steve to check out unashamedly pro at yahoogroups.
This group stinks, to put it mildly. Here are some better ones (short
list):

Well done son. Obviously a kid. Maybe yet to learn the more you slag
someone or something off the more curious people become.

One more time then?

More on circumcision at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unashamedly_procirc/




http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circumcision_pro_or_con_
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mothersandcircumcision
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circumcisedfamilyshow
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Circumcision_Or_Not
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mother...siondiscussion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/autocircumcision

Plenty of good ones here, for and against and in between. If you need
more, there are plenty of links in the ones I mention to others one.
These are just some of the big ones. Im not trying to argue for or
against your views, Im just poiting out that there are plenty of good
groups to refer people to beside the horrible 'unashamed' group, which
is just one guy ranting. No exchange and no one else posting. You you
havent already, check these groups out.

Tim

Briar Rabbit wrote in message ...

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Briar Rabbit wrote:


R. Steve Walz wrote:



Briar Rabbit wrote:



R. Steve Walz wrote:




Briar Rabbit wrote:




Circumcision, Condoms Reduce Risk of Genital Warts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the cause of
genital warts, and some subtypes of the virus can cause cancer. Now,
researchers report that circumcision and regular condom use seem to
reduce the risk of penile HPV infection.

------------------------
Nonsense, more insane pro-circumciser nonsense. The statistical
difference is too tiny to matter, especially when the side-effects
and extra mortality/morbidity from circumcision itself is enormous
by comparison!

Oh dear Steve, you obviously didn't like that much now did you.

-------------
No one likes your lies.





Now for the abstract:

---------------
All you did was repeat your NON-PEER-REVIEWED PUT-UP LIES

from pro-circumciser cranks!

Steve

Oh dear you "skin freaks"

----------------------
Your ignorant contrived pet-name for people who want to defend
and protect infants from your insane butchery of their natural
genital inheritance brands you as an obvious raving paranoid.

There is nothing in the least abnormal about foreskins or people
defending infants from your brutality. That you pretend there is
is evidence that YOU'RE the one with the mental/emotional PROBLEM!

You are clearly terrified of anyone without damaged genitals like
you, and this is because you feel threatened and intimidated by
their escape from the kind of mutilation that you suffered. Your
hatred of foreskins is merely a defensive compensatory reaction.
Steve


Now why did you not comment on the second study? Evidence getting a bit
heavy for you now? Here one about some other STD's. Steve you must admit
the foreskin really is a dog.

Here are the facts:

"CONCLUSION: Uncircumcised men in the United States may be at increased
risk for gonorrhoea and syphilis, but chlamydia risk appears similar in
circumcised and uncircumcised men. Our results suggest that risk
estimates from cross sectional studies would be similar to cohort findings."

=========================

From the following study:

Circumcision and STD in the United States: cross sectional and cohort
analyses.

Diseker RA 3rd, Peterman TA, Kamb ML, Kent C, Zenilman JM, Douglas JM
Jr, Rhodes F, Iatesta M.

Kaiser Permanente Research Department, Nine Piedmont Center, 3495
Piedmont Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30305-1736, USA.

BACKGROUND: Male circumcision status has been shown to be associated
with sexually transmitted disease (STD) acquisition in some, but not
all, studies. Most studies have been cross sectional.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the association between circumcision status and
the prevalence and incidence of gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and syphilis.

METHODS: We analysed cross sectional and cohort study data from a
multicentre controlled trial in the United States. Between July 1993 and
September 1996, 2021 men visiting public inner city STD clinics in the
United States were examined by a clinician at enrolment and 1456 were
examined at follow up visits 6 and 12 months later. At each visit, men
had laboratory tests for gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and syphilis and were
examined for circumcision status. We used multiple logistic regression
to compare STD risk among circumcised and uncircumcised men adjusted for
potentially confounding factors.

RESULTS: Uncircumcised men were significantly more likely than
circumcised men to have gonorrhoea in the multivariate analyses,
adjusted for age, race, and site, in both the cross sectional (odds
ratio (OR), 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9 to 1.7) and in the
cohort analysis (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.6). There was no association
between lack of circumcision and chlamydia in either the cross sectional
(OR, 1.0; 95% CI 0.7-1.4) or the cohort analysis (OR, 0.9; 95% CI
0.5-1.5). The magnitude of association between lack of circumcision and
syphilis was similar in the cross sectional (OR, 1.4; 95% CI 0.6 to 3.3)
and cohort analysis (OR, 1.5; 95% CI 0.4 to 6.1).

CONCLUSION: Uncircumcised men in the United States may be at increased
risk for gonorrhoea and syphilis, but chlamydia risk appears similar in
circumcised and uncircumcised men. Our results suggest that risk
estimates from cross sectional studies would be similar to cohort findings.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

More on circumcision at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unashamedly_procirc/

Briar Rabbit wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Oh dear you "skin freaks"
----------------------
Your ignorant contrived pet-name for people who want to defend
and protect infants from your insane butchery of their natural
genital inheritance brands you as an obvious raving paranoid.

There is nothing in the least abnormal about foreskins or people
defending infants from your brutality. That you pretend there is
is evidence that YOU'RE the one with the mental/emotional PROBLEM!

You are clearly terrified of anyone without damaged genitals like
you, and this is because you feel threatened and intimidated by
their escape from the kind of mutilation that you suffered. Your
hatred of foreskins is merely a defensive compensatory reaction.
Steve

Now why did you not comment on the second study?
----------------------------
Because it wasn't a valid peer-reviewed study.
It was a disguised aesthetic preference masquerading as phony science.


Here are the facts:
--------------------------------
You aren't capable of stating the facts, only of LYING.

You leave out the totality of statistics which would place your
supposed "study" in proper context. When you include the HUMAN
RIGHT for EACH BEING to make their OWN personal medical decisions
about their OWN body with their OWN informed consent, and once you
include ALL dangers to their health, circumcision is a slobbering
slathering vicious animal which needs to be killed. By your kind
of logic, we should remove little girls' breasts at birth to
prevent the VASTLY larger danger of breast cancer. And your smarmy
allegation that foreskins are ugly might as well similarly be
extended to those big floppy breasts on women as well. You are
a mentally-emotionally distorted clown.
Steve